I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

As a Melkite Catholic, how do you define heresy?

Heresy is the formal adherence to a proposition contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils.

So you don't think papal supremacy and infallibility are contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils?

I believe in papal primacy, but not supremacy, and in this belief I am following the teaching proposed by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and the Melkite Holy Synod, which accept primacy only as it was lived and understood in the first millennium.

Since my Church does not accept Vatican I or Vatican II as ecumenical councils it follows that they have no dogmatic authority, and can only be seen as expressions of theological opinions, which are either true or false depending upon the case, as Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby said some years ago (see his book "Ecumenical Reflections"). Moreover, since none of the fourteen Latin councils of the second millennium are ecumenical, the most that can be said about a person who accepts ideas espoused at those synods is that he holds an erroneous opinion, again depending upon the case, but he cannot be deemed a heretic yet because the opinions in question have not yet been declared anathema by an ecumenical council.

As far as Pope Honorius is concerned, he is a heretic because his theological views were condemned at Constantinople III.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:21:47 AM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

You can tell yourself you are a member of whatever religion you like, pretend to be a Hindu for all I care, it doesn't concern me as long as you stick to the arguments. Your religious identity is not among them.

Quote from: Apotheoun

He is a heretic because he officially taught heresy, and that is why the Fathers of Constantinople III anathematized him.

Their anathematization was amended by Pope Saint Leo II to more accurately reflect reality. He never gave an official view on either side of the dispute.

I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council. So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I know that I keep saying this ad nauseam but if the Pope genuinely wishes to reunite with the Church he must accept the fact that he is inferior to Councils of the Church and that, as all bishops, he wields one vote.

He considers himself to be in communion with a body he considers to be heretical. It doesn't appear to trouble him.

Quote from: Apotheoun

I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council. So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I believe you stated in the past that you hold to the reception theory, yes? Under that theory, you'd have to believe that he does, as we know that the council was "ecumenical" because it was received by the whole Church, and the only reason the West received it was predicate upon that amendment.

The Orthodox can't get around the problem by saying they don't believe in Papal supremacy.

I do not accept the idea that the pope is above an ecumenical council, which is why I reject the notion that he can change the decrees (horoi) of the councils. The pope cannot act independently of the universal episcopate, nor can it act independently of him (see Canon 34 of the Apostles). Primacy only exists within synodality and never in separation from it.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:09:46 AM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

He was a heretic, and he was anathematized, but his anathematization was subject to the amendment of Pope Saint Leo II. And saying you believe in Papal Primacy rather than Papal Supremacy doesn't get you out of that. It holds in the reception theory just as much as it does in the Catholic theory. And it would certainly hold in your application of Canon 34 that the Pope had aamendment power over the Council's decision, since they can't act without his consent. His amendment was accepted by the Church, since no issue was made about it despite Leo being quite clear when writing to the Emperor and others what he was doing.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:10:40 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

He was a heretic, and he was anathematized, but his anathematization was subject to the amendment of Pope Saint Leo II. And saying you believe in Papal Primacy rather than Papal Supremacy doesn't get you out of that. It holds in the reception theory just as much as it does in the Catholic theory. And it would certainly hold in your application of Canon 34 that the Pope had aamendment power over the Council's decision, since they can't act without his consent. His amendment was accepted by the Church, since no issue was made about it despite Leo being quite clear when writing to the Emperor and others what he was doing.

No, the canon clearly says that they must work together. Pope Leo, for good or ill, accepted the decrees against Honorius, which was his right, but he had no right to amend the decrees enacted by the council and the papal representatives sent by Pope Agatho. If he disagreed with the canons he should have rejected them, and asked that the Fathers of the Council meet again to hear his concerns, but alas he did not do that.

It is important to remember that according to tradition the primate holds only one vote within the synod; nevertheless, both the primate and the bishops assembled should express the Church's teaching as a symphony.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:17:22 AM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

No, the canon clearly says that they must work together. Pope Leo, for good or ill, accepted the decrees against Honorius, which was his right, but he has no right to amend the decrees enacted by the council of the papal representatives sent by Pope Agatho.

The Fathers do not appear to have agreed, as they went with it.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:14:38 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

No, the canon clearly says that they must work together. Pope Leo, for good or ill, accepted the decrees against Honorius, which was his right, but he has no right to amend the decrees enacted by the council of the papal representatives sent by Pope Agatho.

The Fathers do not appear to have agreed, as they went with it.

Please substantiate that claim. For example, was the anathema withdrawn at the 7th Council?

You can tell yourself you are a member of whatever religion you like, pretend to be a Hindu for all I care, it doesn't concern me as long as you stick to the arguments. Your religious identity is not among them.

Quote from: Apotheoun

He is a heretic because he officially taught heresy, and that is why the Fathers of Constantinople III anathematized him.

Their anathematization was amended by Pope Saint Leo II to more accurately reflect reality. He never gave an official view on either side of the dispute.

I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council. So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I know that I keep saying this ad nauseam but if the Pope genuinely wishes to reunite with the Church he must accept the fact that he is inferior to Councils of the Church and that, as all bishops, he wields one vote.

Unus episcopus, unum suffragium

The Western Council of Constance had no problem judging the pope (or rather the three papal claimants) and choosing a new pope to replace them.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Leo's amendment was not to the effect of withdrawing the anathema or denying that Honorius was a heretic, so of course not. He was further defining the anathema, not contradicting it.

Nobody raised any challenge to Leo's stated actions. There was consent by allowance. And once again, Orthodox reception theory would empower Leo to do this, since the whole Church must receive a council in order for it to be ecumenical, and the west was receiving the council predicate upon the amendment in question to further define what Honorius' crime had been.

Quote from: apotheoun

The Western Council of Constance had no problem judging the pope (or rather the three papal claimants) and choosing a new pope to replace them.

The Council in question was called by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII, at which they both abdicated for the purpose of electing a new pope. The Avignon antipope Clement VIII later recognized that Pope Martin V (Constance's Pope) was the valid claimant. The Council was not "judging popes", it was called by them. There was the document Haec Sancti issued at the previous council called by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund which attempted to place the authority of councils above that of Popes, but that was not part of the valid council (the one called by Gregory XII and John XXIII). Pope Pius II condemned the Conciliarist Heresy in no uncertain terms.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:23:35 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

You have nothing really useful to expend on this dialogue about papal primacy and infallibility at all.

May I contribute to this dialogue the most useful thing of all - the truth.

papal primacy: in order to be united to the holy Church the Pope will need to accept that he becomes ONE bishop with ONE vote at all synods and councils, like every other bishop in the Church

infallibility: in order to be united to the Church, the Pope must realise that the word and concept of infallibility does not exist within the Church.

Here on the Forum we enjoy writing back and forth and waffling on about these topics, playing in our surreal sandpit, but I have given you the bottom-line truth. I hope it will be useful.

Neither my truth, nor the truth Christ left with us.

This is the truth according to a priest-monk living on a sizeable island on the other side of the world from me, who rejects all the truths that I hold dear.

I will follow Christ's truth.

When some Orthodox get tired of playing at being personally infallible...then we'll be able to have a real dialogue.

Dear Mary,

Your odd hominems are getting odder.

I invite you to test what I say, perhaps with your anonymous band of Orthodox prelates with whom you wine and dine. Enquire of them if, should the Churches unite, the Archbishop of Rome will be superior to Ecumenical Councils and be able to nullify them.

Ask them if they will accept the Vatican I teaching on the personal infallibility "non ex consensu ecclesiae" of the Archbishop of Rome.

I think you will find that they agree with the "priest-monk living on a sizeable island on the other side of the world."

The Council in question was called by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII, at which they both abdicated for the purpose of electing a new pope. The Avignon antipope Clement VIII later recognized that Pope Martin V (Constance's Pope) was the valid claimant. The Council was not "judging popes", it was called by them.

I am aware of the history surrounding Constance, and the later apologetic readings of it by ultramontane Roman Catholics, but as Bossuet pointed out, the whole of the council was held as binding in the West up to his own day, and the council itself explicitly affirmed that a pope is subject to an ecumenical council's judgment when the papacy itself is in dispute. As he rightly points out, the council had to hold a position of authority above the primate in the case in question or it could not have elected a new pope.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:27:17 AM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Again, I am aware of the unilateral actions of later popes. That Pius II claimed absolute authority over a council is historically verifiable (see his bull Execrabilis), but claiming authority and actually possessing that authority are not the same thing.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:31:35 AM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

I am aware of the history surrounding Constance, and the later apologetic readings of it by ultramontane Roman Catholics, but as Bossuet pointed out, the whole of the council was held as binding in the West up to his own day, and the council itself explicitly affirmed that a pope is subject to an ecumenical council's judgment when the papacy itself is in dispute. As he rightly points out, the council had to hold a position of authority above the primate in the case in question or it could not have elected a new pope.

The whole of the council was binding. Haec Sancti was not issued by the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance was summoned by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII. The earlier synod summoned by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund was a illicit gathering.

There would have been no question for the council of constance in electing a pope of having an authority "superior to" popes, as there was no Pope at the time, Pope Gregory XII having abdicated, along with Antipope John XXIII.

Irish Hermit - what are you referring to by "Synod of Toledo XIV"? You mean the Synod of Toledo summoned by Pope Saint Leo II? What about it?

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:34:07 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

I am aware of the history surrounding Constance, and the later apologetic readings of it by ultramontane Roman Catholics, but as Bossuet pointed out, the whole of the council was held as binding in the West up to his own day, and the council itself explicitly affirmed that a pope is subject to an ecumenical council's judgment when the papacy itself is in dispute. As he rightly points out, the council had to hold a position of authority above the primate in the case in question or it could not have elected a new pope.

The whole of the council was binding. Haec Sancti was not issued by the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance was summoned by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII. The earlier synod summoned by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund was a illicit gathering.

There would have been no question for the council of constance in electing a pope of having an authority "superior to" popes, as there was no Pope at the time, Pope Gregory XII having abdicated, along with Antipope John XXIII.

Irish Hermit - what are you referring to by "Synod of Toledo XIV"?

Again, I agree with Bossuet in holding that all the sessions of the council are binding on the Western Church. Modern internet apologists come up with all sorts of ways to try and protect the 19th century view of papal supremacy, but I have no interest in doing that.

P.S. - As I said in another post, I have even run into people on the internet who try and defend Dictatus Papae.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:39:55 AM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Well I certainly don't deny being an apologist, it doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Haec Sancti was never approved either by Gregory XII or by Martin V, so there is no case from canon law that it was legally binding. The council was able to enforce its practice for a while, in much the same way as some things were done "In the spirit of" Vatican II today, but in Catholic canon law the Pope must ratify the act of a council, and no Pope ratified Haec Sancti.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:52:21 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

Oh come now, don't expect any intellectually serious person to believe that you chose your view based on an honest assessment and not because it fit your preconceived conclusion. I am a Catholic apologist, but unlike you I am honest with myself and others.

I have not questioned your sincerity and I would ask you to show the same respect.

As I said, I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming Melkite Catholic in 2005, so I know the positions commonly taken by apologists for papal supremacy. I know the Western take on the papacy, and used to believe it myself, but I gave it up after becoming Melkite Catholic and substituted in its place the views of my Melkite Catholic co-religionists, all of whom believe in papal primacy, while simultaneously rejecting the theories of papal absolutism promoted by Vatican I.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:53:50 AM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Apotheoun: Nobody is disputing that Honorius was a heretic. The question of Leo's amendment is to make clear that he did not teach heresy in his official capacity as Pope, as that is the question that has bearing on a dispute about the nature of the Papacy. Any Pope could be a heretic privately.

Quote from: ialmisry

LOL. It always amuses me how ultramontanists make such claims for Rome in utter oblivion of the rest of the Church, both in that these "unique papal prerogatives" aren't unique (Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria reached an understanding with Patriarch John of Antioch after the Council of Ephesus; cf. also the exagerated claims made for the signature of EP St. John on the Formula of Hormisdas with no mention that EP St. John ammended it first, further defining Constantinople as the equal of Old Rome), and often the case when Rome exercised them it was ignored (that Pope Leo contradicted the degree of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church at Constatninople I and Chalcedon made no impression on the Church). Which such magical thinking, where results and reality count for nothing, they should seek employment in political campaigns (if I was more detailed, we would end up in politics).

Rome didn't "reach an understanding" with anyone.

Exactly. The verdict was accepted and incorporated into the papal oath. But since that doesn't deal with the question of Pope St. Cyril effecting the Council of Ephesus with Patriarch John after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith, what is your answer to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria exercizing those supposed "unique papal perrogaives"?

there is no mention of any "amendment": the Council finished its business, issued the Definition of Faith, and adjurned before Pope Leo II was consecrated.

Yes, as I mentioned the first time I brought it up, the Council had already closed when Pope Saint Leo II amended its conclusions. That's what an amendment is.

Only if it is open to amendment.

To take secular examples, no bill not passed by the 111st US Congress can be amended, as that Congress has expired. No bill that it passed and that has been signed can be amended, as it has become law. The Articles of Confederation cannot be amended, as it has been replaced by the present Constitution and the ERA cannot amend the Constitution because the time for ratification has expired.

The Fathers had rendered their judgement, confessed our Faith, and set their seal on it:

Quote

So now that these points have been formulated by us with all precision in every respect and with all care, we definitely state that it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.

Further we declare that there are two wills and principles of action, in accordance with what is proper to each of the natures in Christ, in the way that the sixth synod, that at Constantinople [III], proclaimed, when it also publicly rejected Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, those uninterested in true holiness, and their like-minded followers.

The Emperor issued a decree of the done deal of the Ecumenical Council

Quote

Immediately after the end of the Synod, the Emperor caused to be posted in the third atrium of the great church in the neighborhood of Dicymbalon the following edict:“The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself. Also Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter; more recently. Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius had diffused Monothelitism. He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees. (There follows here an extended confession of faith, with proofs for the doctrine of two wills and operations.) As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy (τὸν κατὰ πάντα τούτοις συναιρέτην καὶ σύνδρομον καὶ βεβαιωτὴν τῆς αἱρέσεως, further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved. Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle (ζώνη); if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.”

One of the mss. of Pope John's letter gives the date of May 682, i.e. before his consecration. But then, the Pope's authority at the council was wielded by "George, an humble presbyter of the holy Roman Church, and holding the place of the most blessed Agatho, ecumenical Pope of the City of Rome" and "John, an humble deacon of the holy Roman Church and holding the place of the most blessed Agatho, and ecumenical Pope of the City of Rome"Btw, the signature of the legate of the Pope of Alexandria to the Council is interesting: "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria."

Pope Leo had no authority to override the Council, particularly since it was convened and closed nearly a year before he was consecrated and nearly before he was elected. (though he are free to contradict yourself on Pope Adrian V again).

Incomparable situations, Leo had not been consecrated because of ongoing negotiations with the Empire vis-a-vis the Byzantine Papacy. It was understood by all that Rome was merely waiting for the formality until the negotiations were complete. Had they not, the Emperor would have tried to extort a tax out of them, in accordance with the practices of the Byzantine Papacy.

The Council of Constantinople does not depend on Toledo, birthplace of heresy.

Yes, it does, even by the Eastern Orthodox "reception" theory, the Council is only ecumenical because it was accepted by the whole Church,

Toledo had already accepted the filoque and thereby had already become a den of heretics. Their reception or not, to be technical, was not the concern of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The West had already spoken with the rest of the Church:

Quote

To make an end of the Monothelite controversy, Emperor Constantine IV asked Pope Donus in 678 to send twelve bishops and four western Greek monastic superiors to represent the pope at an assembly of eastern and western theologians. Pope Agatho, who meanwhile had succeeded Donus, ordered consultation in the west on this important matter. Around Easter 680 a synod in Rome of 125 Italian bishops, with Pope Agatho presiding, assessed the replies of the regional synods of the west and composed a profession of faith in which Monothelitism was condemned. Legates of the pope took this profession to Constantinople, arriving at the beginning of September 680.

After Leo had notified the emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed by him, he proceeded to make them known to the nations of the West. The letters which he sent for this end to the king and to the bishops and nobles of Spain have come down to us. In them he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees. At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it. In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Council of Constantinople was accepted

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Oh come now, don't expect any intellectually serious person to believe that you chose your view based on an honest assessment and not because it fit your preconceived conclusion. I am a Catholic apologist, but unlike you I am honest with myself and others.

I have not questioned your sincerity and I would ask you to show the same respect.

As I said, I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming Melkite Catholic in 2005, so I know the positions commonly taken by apologists for papal supremacy. I know the Western take on the papacy, and used to believe it myself, but I gave it up after becoming Melkite Catholic and substituted in its place the views of my Melkite Catholic co-religionists, all of whom believe in papal primacy, while simultaneously rejecting the theories of papal absolutism promoted by Vatican I.

So why do you remain "in communion" with Rome when you disagree with Rome and agree with the EO Church?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

No, your understanding of papal infallibility is simply polemical is all. Nothing in Pope Honorius' letter to Sergius suggests he was speaking ex cathedra in his official capacity as Pope to define a belief to be held by all Christians. Indeed, we know quite the opposite to be the case, since he simply urged silence on the dispute.

Can you produce the letter in question, to "prove" your case?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Uh the idea of Bishops speaking "from the chair" (any bishop can speak ex cathedra) was definitely established in the 7th century, even if we were to reject the idea of Papal infallibility. And there is nothing in Honorius' letter to suggest that he was speaking from the chair to make an official promulgation of doctrine to be held. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest he even thought anyone other than Patriarch Sergius was going to read the letter.

Can you show us in the text of the letter where this is so?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Oh come now, don't expect any intellectually serious person to believe that you chose your view based on an honest assessment and not because it fit your preconceived conclusion. I am a Catholic apologist, but unlike you I am honest with myself and others.

I have not questioned your sincerity and I would ask you to show the same respect.

As I said, I was a Roman Catholic for eighteen years before becoming Melkite Catholic in 2005, so I know the positions commonly taken by apologists for papal supremacy. I know the Western take on the papacy, and used to believe it myself, but I gave it up after becoming Melkite Catholic and substituted in its place the views of my Melkite Catholic co-religionists, all of whom believe in papal primacy, while simultaneously rejecting the theories of papal absolutism promoted by Vatican I.

So why do you remain "in communion" with Rome when you disagree with Rome and agree with the EO Church?

Why will the Vatican give me communion when I disagree with it and agree with the EO Church, i.e. the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Uh the idea of Bishops speaking "from the chair" (any bishop can speak ex cathedra) was definitely established in the 7th century, even if we were to reject the idea of Papal infallibility. And there is nothing in Honorius' letter to suggest that he was speaking from the chair to make an official promulgation of doctrine to be held. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest he even thought anyone other than Patriarch Sergius was going to read the letter.

Use the personal correspondence between Nestorius and Cyril to prove your case. Poor Nestorius all he had to do was claim that his letters to Cyril were not official and he could have avoided being deposed from his see.

Worked for Ibas at Chalcedon.

Quote

Your attempts to apply theories espoused at Vatican I to the first millennium are doomed to failure.

Yeah, he won't do too well either with the Letter Attributed to Ibas.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra. But they were not content with this amply sufficient defence. Some followed Baronius, but most, if not all, showed themselves anxious to prove that the letters of Honorius were entirely orthodox. There was indeed no difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly interpretation to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however, that it was not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was coupled with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and the Type. It is by no means clear that Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis are to be accounted as Monothelite, since they forbade the mention of "one operation"; it is quite certain that Paul and the Type were anti-Monothelite, for they prohibited "one Will" also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul. This view was followed by many great writers, including Pagi.

But since from the first, the contriver of evil did not rest, finding an accomplice in the serpent and through him bringing upon human nature the poisoned dart of death, so too now he has found instruments suited to his own purpose—namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were bishops of this imperial city, and further Honorius, who was pope of elder Rome, Cyrus, who held the see of Alexandria, and Macarius, who was recently bishop of Antioch, and his disciple Stephen — and has not been idle in raising through them obstacles of error against the full body of the church sowing with novel speech among the orthodox people the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action in the two natures of the one member of the holy Trinity Christ our true God, a heresy in harmony with the evil belief, ruinous to the mind

No "Nihil obstat" nor "Imprimatur" needed.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 02:15:22 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Honorius condemned the use of either "one operation" or "two operations". He attempted to prevent the dispute from occurring at all, not to promulgate the Monothelite side of it.

Quote from: Apotheoun

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

You have a vested interest in reading history through the lens of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, which is why you so often fail to mention facts of great relevance, as you have done just now in mentioning that Honorius condemned the use of "two operations" but failed to mention that he also condemned the use of "one operation".

So are all heretics to be praised becasue they condemn another heresy. Should we praise Nestorius because he damned Eutyches?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Yes, he is a heretic, this is not being disputed. Your claim, that he officially taught monothelitism in his capacity as Pope, is plainly incorrect. This is what Leo clarified in his amendment. However no, he didn't "officially condemn" either view, nor did he officially promulgate either view. He just tried to get the two sides to stop arguing about it all.

So did the Patriarch Acacius, but you take a rather dim view of his attempt in the Henotikon.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I do not believe that the pope has the authority to amend a decree of a council. So, that argument fails to convince me that your position is viable.

I believe you stated in the past that you hold to the reception theory, yes? Under that theory, you'd have to believe that he does, as we know that the council was "ecumenical" because it was received by the whole Church, and the only reason the West received it was predicate upon that amendment.

The West could accept the defintion of the Fathers (as it did, as is) and remain in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or it can reject them and be cast out/leave.

The Orthodox can't get around the problem by saying they don't believe in Papal supremacy.

Since we do not fear making existential decisions, there is no problem to get around.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Exactly. The verdict was accepted and incorporated into the papal oath. But since that doesn't deal with the question of Pope St. Cyril effecting the Council of Ephesus with Patriarch John after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith, what is your answer to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria exercizing those supposed "unique papal perrogaives"?

Perhaps he did, I don't know, it isn't directly relevant since whether one accepts the Catholic theory or the Orthodox reception theory, your general argument, that Leo could not amend the council, is wrong either way. Your argument is also wildly self-contradictory, since you hold here that Pope Saint Cyril of Alexandria was able to effect the Council of Ephesus after it had closed, but will later argue that this cannot be done.

Quote from: Ialmisry

I notice no reply.

And I notice you say he told the Emperor, not the patriarchs. See what I mean by selective condemnation of Caesaropapism.

I don't recall having said anything about Caesaropapism in this thread. Either way, that isn't an example of Caesaropapism. He was informing the competent authority of a decision, not requesting permission.

Quote from: Ialmisry

Only if it is open to amendment.

To take secular examples, no bill not passed by the 111st US Congress can be amended, as that Congress has expired. No bill that it passed and that has been signed can be amended, as it has become law. The Articles of Confederation cannot be amended, as it has been replaced by the present Constitution and the ERA cannot amend the Constitution because the time for ratification has expired.

The Fathers had rendered their judgement, confessed our Faith, and set their seal on it:

Self-contradictory. Ephesus could be amended, but Constantinople III could not?

Quote from: Ialmisry

Toledo had already accepted the filoque and thereby had already become a den of heretics. Their reception or not, to be technical, was not the concern of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The West had already spoken with the rest of the Church

The Orthodox hold that when you lose Orthodox faith, you lose apostolic succession.

Now, the whole of the east remained in communion with the west from AD 867 to AD 1054 despite the fact that the west used the filioque.

Ergo, in AD 864 the Church ceased to exist.

Congratulations, you've painted Christianity out of existence.

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 02:31:46 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

He was a heretic, and he was anathematized, but his anathematization was subject to the amendment of Pope Saint Leo II. And saying you believe in Papal Primacy rather than Papal Supremacy doesn't get you out of that. It holds in the reception theory just as much as it does in the Catholic theory. And it would certainly hold in your application of Canon 34 that the Pope had aamendment power over the Council's decision, since they can't act without his consent.

They had Pope St. Agatho's, who had already gathered the West in Synod, formulated a defintion of Faith and sent it along with his legates with spoke as one with the others at the Sixth Council. They did act without the consent of the Patriarch of Antioch, as they deposed him. Had Pope Honorius lived, he would have been deposed and dealt with, as the Fifth Ecumenical Council dealt with Pope Vigilius.

Quote

His amendment was accepted by the Church, since no issue was made about it despite Leo being quite clear when writing to the Emperor and others what he was doing.

The Emperor and the Council had already published their decree, the decree of the Fathers of the Council, which the Fathers of the Seventh Council declared "in the way that the sixth synod, that at Constantinople [III], proclaimed, when it also publicly rejected...Honorius..uninterested in true holiness, and [his] like-minded followers."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, the canon clearly says that they must work together. Pope Leo, for good or ill, accepted the decrees against Honorius, which was his right, but he has no right to amend the decrees enacted by the council of the papal representatives sent by Pope Agatho.

The Fathers do not appear to have agreed, as they went with it.

No, as the Fathers of Seventh Ecumenical Council make clear: Honorius is in no way or manner distinguished from the other anathematized heresiarchs who spread heresy amongst their followers.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You have nothing really useful to expend on this dialogue about papal primacy and infallibility at all.

May I contribute to this dialogue the most useful thing of all - the truth.

papal primacy: in order to be united to the holy Church the Pope will need to accept that he becomes ONE bishop with ONE vote at all synods and councils, like every other bishop in the Church

infallibility: in order to be united to the Church, the Pope must realise that the word and concept of infallibility does not exist within the Church.

Here on the Forum we enjoy writing back and forth and waffling on about these topics, playing in our surreal sandpit, but I have given you the bottom-line truth. I hope it will be useful.

Neither my truth, nor the truth Christ left with us.

This is the truth according to a priest-monk living on a sizeable island on the other side of the world from me, who rejects all the truths that I hold dear.

I will follow Christ's truth.

When some Orthodox get tired of playing at being personally infallible...then we'll be able to have a real dialogue.

"Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? "

First your supreme pontiff should repent of playing at being personally infallible.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You didn't say he wrote to any hiearchs except his suffragans. His peers would have to know about something objectionable to challenge it.

Pope St. Agatho had convened a synod, and the Fathers accepted his decision and incorporated it into the Definiton of Faith which Rome's legates signed. According to you, Leo II couldn't amend as he wasn't consecrated yet. As Pope elect he accepted the Faith of the Sixth Council. That Pope Leo allegedly tried to explain his acceptance would change the Sixth Council no more than the Act of Union between Pope St. Cyril and Pat. John of Antioch amended the Third Council, much less than the misconstruction you place on the former as the Letter Attributed to Ibas miscontrues the latter changes the boundary stones which the Fathers set up.

and the west was receiving the council predicate upon the amendment in question to further define what Honorius' crime had been.

The West went into schism from the Patriarch of the West, i.e. the Pope of Rome, when Pope Vigilius finally caught up with the Fathers of Constantinople II. It didn't delay Constantinople II achieving Ecumenical status, it just made the West schismatics and heretics and delayed Orthodox.

Pope Agatho had sent his consent, achieved by synod, with his legates, who signed and swore acceptance of the Definition at Constantinople III.

The Western Council of Constance had no problem judging the pope (or rather the three papal claimants) and choosing a new pope to replace them.

The Council in question was called by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII, at which they both abdicated for the purpose of electing a new pope. The Avignon antipope Clement VIII later recognized that Pope Martin V (Constance's Pope) was the valid claimant. The Council was not "judging popes", it was called by them. There was the document Haec Sancti issued at the previous council called by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund which attempted to place the authority of councils above that of Popes, but that was not part of the valid council (the one called by Gregory XII and John XXIII). Pope Pius II condemned the Conciliarist Heresy in no uncertain terms.

You make a distinction between the sessions of your council of Constance that it does not recognize. Since the pontiff Pius II authority derives from the Council, and not, as the council makes clear, the reverse, his condemnation would have the effect of voiding his own authority to make the condemnation.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 03:06:16 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I am aware of the history surrounding Constance, and the later apologetic readings of it by ultramontane Roman Catholics, but as Bossuet pointed out, the whole of the council was held as binding in the West up to his own day, and the council itself explicitly affirmed that a pope is subject to an ecumenical council's judgment when the papacy itself is in dispute. As he rightly points out, the council had to hold a position of authority above the primate in the case in question or it could not have elected a new pope.

The whole of the council was binding. Haec Sancti was not issued by the Council of Constance. The Council of Constance was summoned by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope John XXIII. The earlier synod summoned by Antipope John XXIII and Emperor Sigismund was a illicit gathering.

Then "Pope" Gregory XII abdicated to an illicit gathering and Martin V is an antipope.

There would have been no question for the council of constance in electing a pope of having an authority "superior to" popes, as there was no Pope at the time, Pope Gregory XII having abdicated, along with Antipope John XXIII.

Both were ruling when the council of Counstance opened and asserted its authority and its mandate not to disband until it had elected a pope according to Haec Sancta.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well I certainly don't deny being an apologist, it doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Haec Sancti was never approved either by Gregory XII or by Martin V,

According to the council of Constance, it didn't need to be. And no council of Constance, no Pope Martin V. Pope Gregory XII abdicated to the council after it issued its manifesto of Haec Sancta, so his approval is moot, it coming in his abdication to the council.

n much the same way as some things were done "In the spirit of" Vatican II today, but in Catholic canon law the Pope must ratify the act of a council, and no Pope ratified Haec Sancti.

Then Pope Martin V and his successors are all antipopes, and therefore your "ecumenical councils" 16-21 robber councils.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Exactly. The verdict was accepted and incorporated into the papal oath. But since that doesn't deal with the question of Pope St. Cyril effecting the Council of Ephesus with Patriarch John after the Council had closed and issued its Definition of Faith, what is your answer to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria exercizing those supposed "unique papal perrogaives"?

Perhaps he did, I don't know, it isn't directly relevant since whether one accepts the Catholic theory or the Orthodox reception theory, your general argument, that Leo could not amend the council, is wrong either way. Your argument is also wildly self-contradictory, since you hold here that Pope Saint Cyril of Alexandria was able to effect the Council of Ephesus after it had closed, but will later argue that this cannot be done.

No contradiction. Bottom line, Pat. John accepted the deposition of Nestorius and the anathematization of his views done at Ephesus. Bottom line, Pope St. Leo accepted the anathematization of Pope Honorius done at Constantinople III.

And I notice you say he told the Emperor, not the patriarchs. See what I mean by selective condemnation of Caesaropapism.

I don't recall having said anything about Caesaropapism in this thread. Either way, that isn't an example of Caesaropapism. He was informing the competent authority of a decision, not requesting permission.

The Emperor does not decide these things, just gives his permission to bear his sword not in vain.

To take secular examples, no bill not passed by the 111st US Congress can be amended, as that Congress has expired. No bill that it passed and that has been signed can be amended, as it has become law. The Articles of Confederation cannot be amended, as it has been replaced by the present Constitution and the ERA cannot amend the Constitution because the time for ratification has expired.

The Fathers had rendered their judgement, confessed our Faith, and set their seal on it:

Self-contradictory. Ephesus could be amended, but Constantinople III could not?

Toledo had already accepted the filoque and thereby had already become a den of heretics. Their reception or not, to be technical, was not the concern of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The West had already spoken with the rest of the Church

The Orthodox hold that when you lose Orthodox faith, you lose apostolic succession.

Now, the whole of the east remained in communion with the west from AD 867 to AD 1054 despite the fact that the west used the filioque.

When did you pry the silver tablets off of St. Peter's and St. Paul Outside the Walls put there by Pope Leo III for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith?

EP St. Photios excommunicated Pope Nicholas I over that in 867, and sent that sentence out to the other patriachs. He never communed with Nicholas again. The strong arming of the emperor for his own purposes could only must 103 apostate bishops in 869, which hardly emptied the Orthodox episcopate. In 879 the Church, including Rome, annulled the heretical actions of 869, adn confessed the Orthodox Faith with EP St. Photios and the rest of the Orthodox bishops who had never left it:

Quote

"Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgment, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."

So it remained until 1009, when the pontiff Sergius IV used it in his ascension letter to the EP, and the Germanic Kaiser ordered pontiff Sergius' successor to insert it in the rites of the church. The EP struck the former pope of Rome from the diptychs, and he hasn't returned since.

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

That is the problem when you crush the Church into the singularity of a supreme pontiff: once the illusion is unmaksed, people get disillusioned.

Trod the Orthodox Way, which may be narrow, but it is straight and well supported by many pillars.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That is the problem when you crush the Church into the singularity of a supreme pontiff: once the illusion is unmaksed, people get disillusioned.

Trod the Orthodox Way, which may be narrow, but it is straight and well supported by many pillars.

You're very foolish if you believe this tired monkish bickering makes anyone want to become Orthodox, or Catholic. It's simply frustrating and exhausting, and I no longer have the patience for it. The ecclesiological history of the Christian Church, Catholic and Orthodox, is the history of puffed up self-important monks who never achieved anything of any particular importance outside of their own endless bickering, so it's not surprising that those who are so animated by it are themselves puffed up, self-important, and monkish. The idea that people are heretics because they say "And the Son" in the Nicene Creed? Please. How incredibly stupid. Why should I care what some council said about it?

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 06:15:17 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

Anyways, I've begun to question my interest in Christianity through my interaction with people on this forum, so I won't be continuing the debate. I'd rather engage in real thought than debate obfuscatory rulings of ancient councils with withered, bitter old monks - in spirit if not in body.

Thomist, please do not stop. You are proving to be a wonderful catalyst for people who are reading these messages with an interest in the faith and thanks to you two Catholics are writing back and forth to me .

It's stupid. We read the same gospel, we worship the same Christ, we attend the same mass and we take the same eucharist. Obscurantists on both sides try to tell us we can't be in communion with one another because one thousand years ago a bunch of unwashed barbarians and effeminate Greeks decided they didn't like each other and we've been beholden to them ever since. That is the nature of the schism, not whether we say "And the Son" in our creed or whether the Holy Spirit prevented Pius XII from error when he defined that Mary was assumed bodily in to heaven or if it was that the statement was just true.

In any event, the statement on papal infallibility, especially in light of Lumen Gentium, is so hazy that one could propose to accept or reject it and believe precisely the same thing either way. It's been built up to have been a major event in the history of the Church because it is politically charged, but in reality it means virtually nothing. Since I'm a westerner, I'll "accept" it and let the Vatican get back to me when they decide what it is. Precisely the same thing is true of the Orthodox "reception" theory, which has no precise definition at all and indeed rejects the very idea of precise definitions. Both doctrines, as well as controversies over whether the west believes in "created" grace, or whether the east's acceptance of "energeia" is polytheistic, are post-hoc justifications for millenia-old struggles that were always more political than religious, and I have no doubt it enrages Christ.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 06:39:24 AM by Thomist »

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

P.S: In reality what Papal infallibility has meant in practice, and what it's going to be massaged in to meaning in the future if ecumenicism progresses - is that once the whole Church has decided something, the Pope gets to be the one who stands up at the podium and says it.

Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage

P.S: In reality what Papal infallibility has meant in practice, and what it's going to be massaged in to meaning in the future if ecumenicism progresses - is that once the whole Church has decided something, the Pope gets to be the one who stands up at the podium and says it.

This would not only be contrary to the traditional way in which Councils have announced their decisions but it would also place a stranglehold on the principle of conciliarity (sobornost) in the episcopate. If the bishops of the world formulate something against which the Pope has voted and with which he disagrees (such as the anathema against Honorius) will the Pope refuse to proclaim it? Will the Church then be obliged to convene a Council to depose him?

I know that as a Roman Catholic you have a vested interest in reading history through the lense of the First Vatican Council, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not share that same interest.

As a Melkite Catholic, how do you define heresy?

Heresy is the formal adherence to a proposition contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils.

So you don't think papal supremacy and infallibility are contrary to divine revelation and the teaching of the seven holy councils?

I believe in papal primacy, but not supremacy, and in this belief I am following the teaching proposed by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and the Melkite Holy Synod, which accept primacy only as it was lived and understood in the first millennium.

Since my Church does not accept Vatican I or Vatican II as ecumenical councils it follows that they have no dogmatic authority, and can only be seen as expressions of theological opinions, which are either true or false depending upon the case, as Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby said some years ago (see his book "Ecumenical Reflections"). Moreover, since none of the fourteen Latin councils of the second millennium are ecumenical, the most that can be said about a person who accepts ideas espoused at those synods is that he holds an erroneous opinion, again depending upon the case, but he cannot be deemed a heretic yet because the opinions in question have not yet been declared anathema by an ecumenical council.

As far as Pope Honorius is concerned, he is a heretic because his theological views were condemned at Constantinople III.[/quote]

So, in your church, someone can teach pretty much anything as long as it's not explicitly condemned in an ecumenical council. Got it. At this rate, I'd say the "Catholic Church" in union with Rome is just a more conservative version of the Anglican communion.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

That is the problem when you crush the Church into the singularity of a supreme pontiff: once the illusion is unmaksed, people get disillusioned.

Trod the Orthodox Way, which may be narrow, but it is straight and well supported by many pillars.

You're very foolish if you believe this tired monkish bickering makes anyone want to become Orthodox, or Catholic. It's simply frustrating and exhausting, and I no longer have the patience for it. The ecclesiological history of the Christian Church, Catholic and Orthodox, is the history of puffed up self-important monks who never achieved anything of any particular importance outside of their own endless bickering, so it's not surprising that those who are so animated by it are themselves puffed up, self-important, and monkish. The idea that people are heretics because they say "And the Son" in the Nicene Creed? Please. How incredibly stupid. Why should I care what some council said about it?

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

"He is the only intelligent man in my kingdom, and he's against me! "

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Obscurantists on both sides try to tell us we can't be in communion with one another because one thousand years ago a bunch of unwashed barbarians and effeminate Greeks decided they didn't like each other and we've been beholden to them ever since. That is the nature of the schism, not whether we say "And the Son" in our creed or whether the Holy Spirit prevented Pius XII from error when he defined that Mary was assumed bodily in to heaven or if it was that the statement was just true.

In any event, the statement on papal infallibility, especially in light of Lumen Gentium, is so hazy that one could propose to accept or reject it and believe precisely the same thing either way.

A rather useless dogma then, no?

Quote

It's been built up to have been a major event in the history of the Church because it is politically charged, but in reality it means virtually nothing. Since I'm a westerner, I'll "accept" it and let the Vatican get back to me when they decide what it is. Precisely the same thing is true of the Orthodox "reception" theory, which has no precise definition at all and indeed rejects the very idea of precise definitions.

No, it does not.

Quote

Both doctrines, as well as controversies over whether the west believes in "created" grace, or whether the east's acceptance of "energeia" is polytheistic, are post-hoc justifications for millenia-old struggles that were always more political than religious, and I have no doubt it enrages Christ.

Christ is rather partial to the Truth.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth